 Thank you very much, colleagues. The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Human Tissue Authorisation Scotland Bill. In dealing with this bill, members should have with them the bill as amended at stage 2, the marshal list and the groupings of amendments. Should there be a vote this afternoon, the division bill will sound. Proceedings will be suspended for five minutes following the first division in the afternoon. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds and thereafter will be a one-minute period for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in any debate on any group of amendments should press their request button as soon as possible after I call the group. This stage will turn to the marshal list and I call amendment 1 in the name of the minister. Group with amendment 2, minister to move amendment 1 and speak to both amendments in the group. In moving amendment 1, I thank Lewis MacDonald and David Stewart for bringing forward amendments at stage 2, which relate to the duties of Scottish ministers to provide information and raise awareness about authorisation and for transplantation. Amendment 1 draws together the overall intention of Mr MacDonald and Mr Stewart's stage 2 amendments by setting out how ministers are to carry out their new duty under section 11d of the Human Tissue Scotland Act 2006. That provision places a duty on Scottish ministers to promote information and awareness about how transplantation may be authorised, including in particular how authorisation for transplantation may be deemed to be given. The effect of amendment 1 will be that that duty must be carried out at least once in every calendar year. It will also mean that, when the duty is exercised, Scottish ministers must have regard to the need to provide information to the public about how authorisation of transplantation may be deemed to be given and how to give an express authorisation or to make an opt-out declaration. The amendment makes it clear that the Scottish ministers must have regard to the need to provide this information in healthcare settings. That could include, for example, providing information in GP surgeries or hospital waiting areas in line with the intention of Mr Stewart's amendment at stage 2. Amendment 2 is consequential on amendment 1, so I ask members to support amendments 1 and 2. I welcome the minister's amendment, which fulfills his commitment to refine the text of amendments passed by the Health and Sport Committee at stage 2, and I welcome his willingness to seek an agreement on the area as he says that amendment 1 and amendment 2 are consequential on that. My amendment at stage 2 was to commit ministers to an annual campaign to raise awareness of both deemed and express authorisation and opting out. David Stewart's amendment was to commit the NHS to communicate with patients about authorisation and opting out. I am glad that the minister has engaged with Mr Stewart and myself on those matters, and his amendment here is to deliver on his commitment given at stage 2, and therefore look forward to supporting both the amendments in this group. Thank you very much. Therefore, the question is whether amendment 1 will be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Can I call amendment 2 and ask the minister to move formally? Move formally. Thank you very much. The question is whether amendment 2 will be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 3, in the name of Lewis MacDonald, grouped with amendment 4, Lewis MacDonald to move amendment 3 and speak to both amendments in this group. Thank you very much. The purpose of amendment 3 is to require ministers to review and report on the new system of authorisation five years after it comes into force, including a review of the Government's actions to raise awareness of the changes under the bill in general. The Health and Sport Committee unanimously agreed this approach in supporting an amendment in my name at stage 2. Amendment 3 refines that approach, and amendment 4 is consequential. I am grateful to the minister again for working with me on those amendments, and I believe that they deliver the shared purpose of the Government and the Health and Sport Committee. Amendment 3 provides that ministers must review both the new arrangements for deemed authorisation and their own actions to promote information and awareness about the revised system of organ donation. The report must say whether the objectives of this bill have been met and whether family members have had the sport that they need. That will allow ministers and Parliament to make a judgment five years after implementation about whether the bill before us today has made the difference, which we hope that it will. If not, what more at that stage might need to be done. I support amendments 3 and 4 lodged by Lewis MacDonald. I would like to thank him for working with the Scottish Government to ensure that the proposals align with the overall aim of the bill. Thank you very much. No other member wishes to speak. Does Mr MacDonald wish to add anything? I do not. Thank you very much. Therefore, the question is that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 4. Lewis MacDonald to move. To move. That is moved. The question is that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed, and that concludes consideration of amendment stage. Members will be delighted to hear. Before we move on to the debate at stage 3 on the human tissue bill, as members will be aware at this point in proceedings, I have to make a statement to decide whether, in my view, any provision of the bill relates to a protected subject matter, that is whether it modifies the electoral system or franchise for the Scottish Parliamentary elections. In my view, it does no such thing, therefore it does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3. We will turn to stage 3 debate. I invite all members who wish to speak in this debate on stage 3 of the Human Tissue Authorisation Scotland Bill to press their request-to-speak buttons, as soon as possible. I call on the minister, Joe Fitzpatrick. Presiding Officer, I welcome the opportunity to open this stage 3 debate on the Human Tissue Authorisation Scotland Bill. I am proud to have led this bill through the Parliament, but I want to start by recognising the work of my predecessors in relation to this bill, but also in relation to wider improvements in the transplantation landscape. Since the early days of this Parliament, there has been much discussion about the pros and cons of moving to an opt-out system. At this point, I want to put on record my thanks to the bill team and officials who have got us to the stage of having a bill that I am clear will be a positive addition to the work, which has also delivered so much progress over the past decade. I would also like to thank the Health and Sport Committee for its consideration and sensitive approach to the scrutiny of the bill, reflecting its understanding of the circumstances in which organ and tissue donation must take place as a result of the incredible generosity of donors and their family. I also want to thank other members for taking the time to discuss their concerns with me, particularly Mike Rumbles, Jeremy Balfour and Gordon Lindhurst, who lodged amendments at stage 2 facilitating further refinement, discussion and clarification of the operation of the bill. There is no one answer to increasing organ and tissue donation, and that is why we must continue to build on the measures that have been put in place over the past 13 years and to which the bill contributes. The primary aim of the bill is to introduce an opt-out system of organ and tissue donation for deceased donors. The bill amends the existing Scottish legislation that supports donation, which is the 2006 Human Tissues Scotland Act 2016, by introducing a new additional form of authorisation called deemed authorisation. In practice, what that means is that where a person aged 16 or over was not known to have any objection to donation, donation may proceed. However, the bill also contains safeguards for those who would not have the capacity to understand deemed authorisation or people residing in Scotland for less than 12 months who may not be aware of the system and will not be subject to deemed authorisation. Key to the success of donation are donor families, and the way in which families are approached is a key part of that. The bill ensures that the interests and views of the donor are safeguarded at all times by including a clear and effective mechanism to do that. There is a duty on health workers to make inquiries of families and others who are entitled to provide information reflecting the most recent views of the donor. I know that the committee was given a demonstration by the specialist nurses for organ donation on how the approach is made to families and saw the sensitive and supportive way that the family is guided through the process at such a difficult time. That is a real strength of the current system, and that approach will continue under the new system. There is a high awareness of donation in Scotland, and one of the areas that has raised a lot of discussion in committee during the stage 1 debate is the importance of information and awareness. I welcome that the duties to promote information and awareness in the bill have been strengthened by the amendments that are developed in collaboration with Lewis MacDonald and David Stewart. I reiterate to the chamber our intention and commitment to fulfil those duties. We are committed to an awareness-raising campaign for at least 12 months during the lead-up to the introduction of the opt-out system. We will take time in the lead-up to that period to work with communications experts and representative groups to ensure that information is accessible to different groups in the population, including hard-to-reach groups, minority groups and those with specific needs. In addition to the multimedia activity that is being planned, there will be a direct mailing to all households in Scotland in the lead-up to the introduction of the system. That will explain the change in law, including, among other things, how a person can opt in or opt out of donation. The secondary school education pack, which is highly regarded as good practice, will also be updated and disseminated. We are also exploring how information can be provided to young people reaching 16 years of age so that they are aware of the opt-out system and can make an informed choice about their donation decision. We will continue to work with Kidnair Research UK to train the volunteer peer educators who are a valuable resource, raising awareness of donation and transplantation among ethnic minority groups. In that respect, I am delighted that Kidnair Research UK has invited officials to speak about the opt-out system in July at their conference with Imams to raise awareness about donation and transplantation. The bill makes an important contribution to developments in donation and transplantation. I thank the experts in the NHS who have guided us through the sensitive and complex issues of the process, working with us to develop a legal framework for authorisation for donation that respects that. As we move towards introduction of the opt-out system, we will be working with the NHS to ensure that the NHS systems are developed and that those working in donation and transplantation have the necessary guidance and training that is needed to deliver the new system safely and successfully. The work to increase donation and transplantation will not stop with the passing of the bill. As less than 1 per cent of the population will die in circumstances where donation is possible, it is important that we continue to find different ways to make progress. In closing, I want to be clear when we talk about progress what that means to the lives of those awaiting transplant. Members might not know the name of Gordon Hutchison, but they might recognise him from his scar. Gordon has featured as part of the donation campaign in Scotland for the last six years. Since his transplant as a child, he has gone on to live a full life. He has married and recently become a proud father of a baby girl. On his transplant, Gordon has said, the life that I live before the heart transplant compared to my life now is night and day. My organ donor saved my life. For the many people awaiting a life-changing transplantation operation, I move that the Human Tissue Authorisation Scotland Bill will be passed. I thank you very much, minister, and I call on Miles Briggs to open for the Conservative Party. Thank you, Presiding Officer. For the many families and campaigners across Scotland, today is an incredibly important day. Every day in the UK, three people die waiting for a new organ. In Scotland, as has been outlined already, 500 people are currently waiting for a transplant that will and could save their lives. Across the UK, Scotland has the highest proportion of people on the organ donor register but has the lowest rate of family consent and also the lowest rate of organ donation. Given the gift of life, it is an extraordinarily special thing for someone to do following the death of a family member. I would like to pay tribute, as the minister has, to those who have already taken the decision not only to join the organ donor register but the work that their family have to undertake to make sure that their wishes are taken forward. That is, at heart, what we are trying to achieve today, to make it easier for an individual to express their personal wishes and to start a national conversation on organ donation. I would like to pay tribute to those who have also worked on the bill in past parliaments as well as in this Parliament, including Ann McTaggart and Mark Griffin. I also thank those who have given evidence and met with the health and sport committee during the course of our inquiries. I speak for all members of the committee when I say that their personal experiences have stayed with us and helped to take forward and shape suggestions to how we believe, as a committee, that the bill can be strengthened and improved. Key to success of any organ donation, as the minister has outlined, is the experiences of families and friends that can ultimately help to improve decisions and experience at what is the hardest time for anyone that anyone can imagine. During our time in scrutinising the bill in Parliament, the experience in Wales was raised repeatedly. It is clear that there has been significant positive progress that is made in Wales, and that can be helping to change and improve our own system here in Scotland. In Wales, family consent has increased from less than 49 per cent to 70 per cent following the introduction of an optic system in 2015. That is welcome progress, and I hope that we will see the same realised soon here in Scotland. There is a specific issue, which I hope that members still believe needs to be addressed in relation to the provision of intensive care beds across the country, especially in Highland and south of Scotland. Scotland has the lowest number of intensive care beds anywhere in the United Kingdom. I know that that was an issue highlighted by the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh at stage 2, and I know that my Health and Sport Committee colleague David Stewart has also raised that issue. As the bill has progressed, both of us are mindful to try to bring forward amendments with regard to this in the bill, but I do not think that that would have been useful or appropriate for this bill. It is an issue that I still feel that we need to see further discussion and clarity around on the Scottish Government's commitment and further proposals, as this will ultimately, I believe, affect the potential success of the bill. I welcome the minister's constructive approach to working with the committee on the issue, but I would also like to see further details and assessment of future staffing and provision of intensive care beds and a commitment to keep this under review as the bill goes forward. When I have met people who have received a donation, the clear message that they give me is that they believe that the collaborative approach between the organ donation teams and families has literally made a life-saving impact. I would also like to add what the minister has said to thank them for their work. One donor can save up to nine lives and transform even more by donating tissue. Thanks to the generosity of donors, their families and the work of our NHS, we have seen great progress on organ donation over the past few years. I hope that the minister will provide and make sure that the campaign that he has outlined is innovative and positive so that we can have a positive public information campaign that will capture the positive spirit of what it is to be a donor and what the families have expressed during our time during the committee. We need to work to continue to progress and increase donor numbers and save the lives of more people across Scotland and the UK. I believe that the bill can and will deliver on those two main aims, the further increase donor numbers while honouring donors' decisions and the decisions that they have taken during their life. I know from speaking to those who have received an organ and their families just how incredibly thankful they are to individuals and donors and also their wider family. It generally is sometimes a situation that cannot be put into words by donors and their families and what it means for someone, son or daughter, to have been saved by a total stranger. I hope that the passing of this legislation today will help to take forward a positive national conversation for donors as well. I would like to conclude with the words of 57-year-old Steve Donaldson from Largs in North Ayrshire, who had a heart transplant in 2010 after suffering severe heart failure. He waited nine months on the organ donor transplant list before a suitable donor was found. In the briefing provided by the British Heart Foundation for today's debate, Steve said, My message to everyone is please sign the organ donor register. Have the conversation with your family about your wishes, it can really make a difference. As a Parliament, we are currently debating and passing so many pieces of legislation, not as efficiently as we have today, but none, however, can be so important and make such a life-changing impact than the passing of the human tissue bill today. I think that that is something that we should all rightly be proud of. Thank you very much. I now call on Davis Stewart to open for the Labour Party. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This, of course, is crucial legislation. How do we raise the level of organ donation in Scotland to match the needs of those desperately awaiting transplantation? The principles of this bill have been broadly accepted across the political divide, notwithstanding the lodging of a number of amendments designed to improve and, indeed, develop the legislation. I acknowledge the help of the minister and his officials with my amendment, which is now in Joe Fitzpatrick's name, but I could stress that no copyright fee is required in this situation. Scottish Labour has long been supportive of soft opt-out for organ donation, and we are glad to see that Scotland is finally moving to adopt such a system. Credits should be given to the individuals who have crossed the political divide who have consistently campaigned for this change. In particular, we are thanks to Scottish Labour's Ann McTaggart for her proposed member's bill in the last session, which, although unsuccessful, significantly moved the debate forward. I would like to personally acknowledge the contribution of Mark Griffin, who has done such a fantastic contribution in this as well. I know that he has a big family relationship there, so it is Mark Griffin, of course. Wales, of course, has led the way in this issue, and though it is still relatively early to assess the impact, there are positive signs of increased levels of family consent and donation. We must learn from the experience of implementation in Wales, including the importance, as the minister said, of resourcing the public awareness and information campaigns. Scottish Labour's successful minutes at stage 2 have raised the awareness-raising element of the bill by requiring annual campaigns. We also established a five-year assessment of changes so that there is a clear learning on the effectiveness of implementation and improvement in organ transplantation. However, the bill will not be the only change. That bill will not be the only change that is needed to increase transplantation rates in Scotland. Going forward to the Scottish Government needs to ensure that there is sufficient investment in Scotland's infrastructure to support the increase in organ donation. As we heard from previous speakers, including the minister, 426 patients died in the UK, whereas on the transplant list are within one year of removal in 2018. As we heard from Miles Briggs, Scotland has the highest percentage of people on the organ donation register but the lowest actual organ donation in the terms of rates per million. Family authorization is also low in Scotland. The case is the gap between those who wish to donate organs and the number who go on to join the organ donation register. 80 per cent support donation will be only 52 per cent signed up to the register. In simplistic terms, the purpose of the bill is to bridge the divide, to encourage those who support organ donation by having not registered an ODR to have their wishes recorded and respected. Let me tell you about my friend Gary. He is in his mid-fifties and lives in Gunlossuson 5. Nearly two years ago, he was given the gift of life by a crucially needed heart transplant. Prior to that, he was in the transplant list for 12 months and had a pacemaker, but he slowly deteriorated. Without the transplant, he would have died. Gary cannot praise enough the dedicated support of the nursing staff at the Golden Jubilee. He said to me that it was a matter of life or death. We also need to look at international evidence and best practice. That is absolutely crucial. We know from the background research by the British Heart Foundation that people living in countries with soft opt-out were more willing to donate their organs. In general terms, soft opt-out means that, unless the deceased is expressed a wish in life, not to be an organ donor, consent will be assumed. Of the top 10 countries in terms of donors per million, nine have an opt-out system. As I mentioned at stage 1, that brings us to Spain, who lead the world lead table for organ donations. We took evidence at the health and sport committee at this point. Why are they so successful? I know that the ministers have a big interest in that. There are three main reasons. They have a comprehensive network of transplant coordinators, a donor detection programme and a greater provision of intensive care beds. Could the ministers wind up commenting on that? Bear in mind that it is not a zero-sum game. We must also be concentrating on increasing the number of intensive care beds, as well as looking at the changes in consent. During the stage 1 debate, I spoke of two issues raised by the Law Society. I raised the last issue, so the minister has some advance warning. The issue is deemed authorisation, consistent with the Montgomery ruling, which is Montgomery versus NHS Lanarkshire, which was the Supreme Court case around informed consent. Is the bill consistent with the European Convention of Human Rights, specifically the case of Elbert versus Latvia in 2015, which was found to be a breach of article 8, which is the right to privacy? However, I do believe that the five-year review will allow considered reflection on the above points. In practice in the future, what assessments made about medical professionals will take into account the wishes of the whole family. However, I believe that this is a vitally important piece of legislation and will be a matter of life and death for many Scots, such as my friend Gary, desperate need of life-saving organ donation. As Cobran once said, you give little when you give of your possessions, it's when you give of yourself that you truly give. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'd like to begin by thanking all those who have campaigned for this change over many years. I'd like to thank the RCN, the BMA, the British Heart Foundation and the Law Society of Scotland for their briefings for today. However, I'd also like to express my gratitude to Mark Griffin for his lengthy campaigning on the issue and to Anne McTaggart for her work in introducing her bill in 2015. Although it ultimately did not win support in Parliament, I think that it has been a key impetus for change. The policy memorandum for the bill reminds us that organ and tissue donation and transplantation is an incredible development in modern healthcare that continues to save and to significantly improve lives, and the Greens strongly support the intent of this important bill. It also reminds us that organ and tissue donation and transplantation is dependent on the generosity, commitment and the skill of a number of people. I'd like to thank them all. We already know—we've heard in this debate again today—that Scotland does well in terms of donor registration and that 52 per cent of people in Scotland have signed up to the organ donor register. However, although the percentage is the highest in the UK, there is a persistent gap. David Stewart spoke of it strongly. That gap between the figure and the approximately 80 per cent of people who support organ donation—a new poll released today by the British Heart Foundation—has revealed that 7 in 10 people in Scotland back the proposed changes to organ donation law, so the will to donate is clearly there. I am hopeful that the bill will help to tackle the disparity between people's intentions and the actual number of donations. Family authorisation for organ donation in Scotland is the lowest in the UK, and that results in the loss of approximately 100 potential donors every year. The bill can go some way towards rectifying that as evidence from elsewhere in the UK suggests. In Wales, family approval for organ donation has increased from 49 to 72 per cent since introduction of the opt-out system. I am therefore optimistic that a similar pattern will begin to emerge in Scotland and that the number of family consents will rise, which in turn will lead to an increase in donations. However, during the stage 1 debate, I and others have highlighted that an opt-out system on its own is not an incident solution. It has to be part of a broader strategy to increase donations. Therefore, I am pleased to see a duty placed on Scottish ministers to annually provide information to the public about how to opt in or opt out of the system. It is ultimately preferable to maximise the number of people opting in, as that will remove any ambiguity about the patient's wishes and, hopefully, allay family members' concerns about going against them. Healthcare professionals must also be given comprehensive guidance about the changes to organ donation proposed by the bill. All colleges of nursing have revealed that only 25 per cent of its members feel that they can speak with confidence about organ donation with patients and their families, so there is still much work to be done to raise awareness among healthcare professionals. The college has called for an education programme for all healthcare professionals, as well as ensuring that we have sufficient resources for education and training if the wider nursing workforce supports a shift in the culture of conversations on donations. It is really important that we empower our healthcare professionals to speak confidently to patients about organ donation and to address any concerns or fear that the change in legislation may cause. I would like to close by thanking the BMA for sharing a number of personal stories about organ donation today. I would like to focus on the words of Jill Hollis in particular. The lung transplant that I received in 2004 took me from being close to death to living again. My transplant was the most amazing gift and I have nothing but gratitude for my donor family and the medical team. I am hopeful that the bill will lead to more stories like Jill's and enable more people to give the gift of life. That keeper of organisational memory in parliamentary history, Mike Rumbles, remarked to me just a few moments ago that he thought that this stage 3 proceedings was some kind of record in the swift way in which we dispatched with all the amendments. That speaks to the brevity of the proceedings and the consensus that has been built around the bill. As Alison Johnston said, however, it did not happen in isolation. I too want to reflect on the contribution both of Anne McTaggart in the last session and Mark Griffin, who I think is fair to say held our committee and the Government's feet to the fire in the early days of this Parliament to ensure that we got to this day. I want to thank him very much indeed for getting us to this point and indeed the Government for making good on their commitment to do so. It is an emotional day for me. It is a joyful one at that as well. As I said at stage 1 proceedings, when I was an aspirant political candidate, as I am sure you all were one day as well, in hastings we were often asked what your private member's bill would be if you made it to the Scottish Parliament. As I said at stage 1, Deputy Presiding Officer, this would be that bill. That came from a lifetime of understanding about the needs of organ donation and the paucity of organ donation that has until now existed in this country. That was because my good friend, Anders Gibson, who suffered from CF, I grew up alongside with an expectation that his life would always be cut short. To my great sadness that Anders did not live to see this day, his long transplant when it came ultimately came too late and did not properly take, but I speak in his memory today. I know that he is looking down on us and with great pleasure at what this Parliament is about to do. Organ donation is vitally important. There is not enough of it. That is why I was keen to host a reception in a photo call earlier this year for Give a Kidney UK. It is a philanthropic kidney donation organisation of people who give altruistically of healthy kidneys to complete strangers, completely out of the will to be philanthropic and to give life to others who might have to suffer protractive periods on dialysis or even life limitation. I want to salute them in this debate today as well. However, it is in the foothills of our preparation around this legislation that I learned the full extent of what actually goes in to the process of organ donation. It was our great privilege—I am sure that I speak for all of the committee today—when I talk about our experience of meeting with the specialist organ donation nurses who are angels, heaven sent and a credit to our national health service. They talked about using the rather onerous bureaucracy, which I think was quite shocking to members of the committee to see how many intimate questions were asked of a soon-to-be-deceased relative in their final hours by loved ones literally at their bedside. However, they talked about turning that process into the telling of a life story and finding mirth and merriment in what, for everyone concerned, would be their darkest hours. We met with transplant recipients. That is when the idea of organ donation as being gift was struck home. The sheer magnitude of the present that somebody had given in the last hours of their life to somebody unknown to them who would go on to live a happy and fulfilling existence off the back of the organs that they received. With that, we also learned about the roller coaster of emotions that goes with that. Nandus had that, too, when he had a couple of false starts being driven to Newcastle and returned when the transplant fell through. I hope that the minister will address those points in his remarks and talk about the mental health support that we can give to those people who are on transplant waiting lists. We also need to recognise that this is just one aspect in encouraging people to have those conversations, because those conversations are going to be absolutely important going alongside this bill. If I can finish on this, I quote from the chief executive of the British Heart Foundation, Simon Gillespie, who said, that there is a desperate shortage of organ donations. Introducing an optite system will better reflect the views of the general public and give hope to those currently waiting for a transplant that they so desperately need. We support that bill. We now move to the open debate. In speeches of four minutes please, Emma Harper, followed by Lewis MacDonald. I am pleased to be able to speak in support of stage 3 of the human tissue authorisation Scotland bill this afternoon. From the outset, I empathise that 500 people in Scotland are waiting for a transplant at any one time, showing the need for this Parliament to take this action and support this bill today. As deputy convener of the health and support committee, I have had an opportunity to carry out much of the scrutiny of the bill at stage 2. I thank all of those who have provided briefings for this bill throughout its progression in Parliament, including the organ donation nurses Anne McTaggart and Mark Griffin, who is in the chamber this afternoon. All those who have provided evidence to the committee, including the BMA and all the other professional organisations, are welcome as well. As a former nurse and liver transplant team member in Los Angeles, California, I was especially grateful to hear from the people who were either waiting on an organ or those who were transplant recipients. I have heard many pre-transplant stories from patients who were about to be the recipients. The personal voices of the recipients and people waiting for organs was vitally important in helping to inform committee members, and I thank all who came to speak to us. It is useful to again stress that the bill's principal aim, which I am pleased that the Parliament overwhelmingly supported at stage 1, is to bring about a long-term culture change to encourage people to support organ and tissue donation by number 1, registering on the organ donation register and number 2, moving to a soft opt-out system. Just over half of Scotland's population have already registered to donate their organs or tissue after death, reflecting both their incredible generosity and the progress that they have made in highlighting the need for organ donors, which is absolutely welcome. However, if we are to achieve the aim of reducing the number of people dying as a result of the unavailability of organs, then we need more people to register. Most organ and tissue donations can only occur in tragic circumstances, and only 1 per cent of people die in situations where there could be an organ donor. Given that clear need for more organs to save lives, the bill will therefore introduce the deemed authorisation for deceased donation where an adult has not clearly opted in or out. What that means is that when someone dies and has not made their wishes on donation known, their consent to donation would be presumed, and conversations regarding commencement of donation processes could occur. The committee received evidence and submissions from some who were concerned that the bill, because of the deemed consent element of the bill, meant that people's organs would be donated, as it had not opted out, but, for example, it had never got round to it. However, that argument would assure people that the bill includes safeguards to ensure that donation wishes of the deceased are followed. The bill also provides a legal framework for pre-death procedures that facilitate successful donation for transplantation so that people are educated and encouraged to make their wishes known. This section of the bill, addressing opt-out declarations made by an adult, can be found on page 16. The committee received a number of submissions and indeed heard evidence from people who were concerned about a lack of public awareness of the change in legislation, which was originally a concern for me, so I am therefore very pleased that the Scottish Government has committed to continuing to deliver high-profile awareness raising activity every year as set out, promoting continued national conversation. The Scottish Government's campaign, We Need Everybody, launched in July 16, has been a success, leading to increases in the number of people joining the organ donation register. In conclusion, being probably the only person in this chamber who has held a kidney, a pancreas, a liver and a heart in my hands for them to be placed into another person, I encourage all to consider registering to be a tissue and organ donor and to offer this gift to save someone's life. I urge all to vote in favour of this bill this evening. I call Lewis McDonnell to be followed by Kenneth Gibson. The bill gives us a fresh opportunity to maximise organ donation to help some of the hundreds of people waiting for organ transplants that can save their lives. Instead of presuming that people do not want to donate their organs after death unless they have opted in, we will now presume that they do want to donate unless they have opted out. That change is made within the framework of the law as it stands. The bill amends the human tissue Scotland Act 2006. It is evolution, not revolution. I welcome that in this case, not least because I took the current law through Parliament and I believed then that it laid the foundations for whatever evolution in the law might be needed in future. Before 2006, people did not authorise transplantation of their organs after death. They consented to it. The difference between consent and authorisation is not just a word, authorisation makes the law far clearer than it was before in requiring that people's wishes on these matters should be followed. The 2006 act also called for a concerted effort to tell people how authorisation works and to explain the difference organ donation could make, and successive Governments have delivered that. Scotland, as a result, achieved the highest rates of authorisation in the UK over several years, now as high as half the adult population, although, as others have said, that is not the whole story. The 2006 act was also designed to enable the further development of the transplantation infrastructure in Scotland. As a number of members have said, the Health and Sport Committee heard impressive evidence from specialist nurses for organ donation about how that all now works. Despite all that progress and despite the high rate of opting in, Scotland also has the highest rate of bereaved relatives saying no to organ donations. Health professionals are understandably reluctant to challenge their right to do that at what is already a very sad and stressful time for those families. The law should not seek to reduce families' right to be heard nor should it compromise the duty of care of which doctors and nurses owe to the bereaved at the time of death. What the bill seeks to do instead is to widen the pool of people from whom organ donation may come. We are, as we have heard, following the lead taken by Wales in 2015, and a similar change will happen in England in 2020. Rates of donation in Wales have now overtaken those in Scotland. The Welsh bill in 2015 was itself the trigger for increased public awareness, although it took some time for that to result in increased rates of organ donation, but that is now beginning to happen and the time is right for us to follow that lead. Like others, I thank my colleague Mark Griffin and my former colleague Ann McTaggart for their efforts to bring forward the principle of opting out in place of opting in. The Scottish Government has now enabled that principle within the framework of the existing law and, as we have seen today, with very broad cross-party support. Passing the bill can help to increase rates of donation and save lives, but changing the law will not be enough in itself. Today's amendments have mandated ministers to use this bill to raise awareness, to encourage people to authorise donations, even though deemed authorisation is now in place, and to strengthen further the transplantation infrastructure in Scotland. We have also agreed that ministers should review the legislation in five years' time, including how it has been communicated. We should also finally renew the promise that Parliament made in 2006, that we will give those measures every support to achieve the change that we want to see, but, if Parliament needs to return to this topic again in future, it should not hesitate to do so. Kenneth Gibson, followed by Mike Rumbles Thank you, Presiding Officer. It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, knowing that, at the decision time, this Parliament will, I believe, vote for a bill that MSPs pass in present, third sector organisations such as the British Heart Foundation, healthcare professionals and, indeed, patients themselves have long been calling for. This bill, like Ann McTarget's bill, proposed in the last parliamentary session, is intended to increase the availability of organs and tissue for transplantation, and therefore reduce the number of people waiting for a transplant. At stage 1, members shared moving stories of loved ones or constituents who waited too long for an organ and the grave consequences that can have. Indeed, almost 600 people are waiting a potential life-saving organ here in Scotland. If the bill can achieve any reduction in that number, it is something that you all can and should get behind. Under the bill, there are three key provisions, opting in by explicitly stating your authorisation to donation, opting out by explicitly removing authorisation and deemed authorisation, the default option if someone has not recorded their wishes. In developing this soft opt-out system, we can more easily capture the estimated 80 to 90 per cent of Scots who support organ donation while closing the gap between the number of people who state that they would wish to donate and the number who actually joined organ donation register. As an overwhelming majority of people would wish their organs donated, it can be surmised that many of the 48 per cent of Scots who are not registered donors simply have not got round to opting in. This legislation will help capture those folk who have the potential to save lives by donating their organs and tissues. Of course, individual choice must be protected. That is why the bill introduces a soft opt-out incorporating safeguards and conditions that might include seeking authorisation from a person's nearest relative in cases involving certain groups or people or specific circumstances. Deemed authorisation will not apply to under-16s, those who are resident in Scotland in less than 12 months and those without capacity. That is not about asking the family for their views or overriding the wishes of donors, it is about asking them what they believe with the views of their deceased relative. Unfortunately, just 57 per cent in 2017-18, Scotland has the lowest level of family authorisation in the UK. I am glad, therefore, that the Scottish Government took an evidence-based approach to resolving that. The strong evidence suggests that legislation like this will improve levels of family authorisation by encouraging frank conversations between relatives about their wishes. Indeed, people living in countries with opt-out systems are between 27 per cent and 56 per cent more likely to authorise donation of their relatives' organs. That has absolutely been the case in Wales, where consent rates rose from 49 per cent in 2014-15 to 72 per cent now. I hope to see a similar uplift here in Scotland. I am grateful to the Health and Sports Committee for their excellent work on scrutinising the bill and strengthening it at stage 2, specifically on the amendment to place a duty on the Scottish ministers to promote an annual awareness and information campaign, ensuring regular opportunities for people to make or review their decision to donate or not. Today's amendment has also helped. We know the power that this can have. Indeed, the duty on the Scottish ministers to promote awareness about donation in the Human Tissues Scotland Act 2006 resulted in year-on-year increases in people recording their decisions on the organ donation register. That bill will have an even greater impact. I am certain that deemed authorisation will drive a long-term increase in support for organ and tissue donation. Perhaps even the progress of the bill through Parliament has inspired more people to discuss donation with loved ones. That can only be a good thing. Of course, the ability to transplant is always reliant upon the medical viability of organs, which the bill cannot legislate for. At stage 1, the minister highlighted that the other work that this Government is undertaking to increase the number of viable organs, such as providing funding for new technology, to improve patient outcomes, receiving liver transplants and to increase the proportion suitable for transplantation. That is work to be commended and built upon going forward. I close by paying tribute to everyone who donated and every family that supported and have facilitated those donations, saving and improving lives. That is truly a gift. One of this bill will help to bestow on many more untold lives going forward. I now have Mike Rumbles, followed by Christine Grahame. Three minutes each, please. I am convinced that if we pass this bill at decision time, then there will be a greater chance of saving lives. So why was I the only MSP to vote against the bill at stage 1? I have been on the organ and donation register myself for the last 20 years, and it is heartening to see that the majority of Scots are now on the register 2. That has come about through many measures, not least through the act that passed here in 2006, as previously mentioned by Lewis MacDonald, in which we focus on the wishes of the deceased rather than the wishes of his or her nearest relative. When I first saw the bill after publication, I was, I have to say, perturbed that the safeguards in it were not sufficient in regard to the wishes of a potential donor. By that I mean that it seemed to me that there was a danger that the wishes of the potential donor might in some cases, in some cases, be ignored. There was one phrase in the bill that I thought could undermine the success of the legislation. The bill originally said in section 7 that deemed authorisation does not apply if a person provides evidence to a health worker that would convince a reasonable person that the adult was unwilling for the transplantation to take place. So the evidential bar for the family of the deceased to confirm the wishes of the deceased was being raised and being raised unnecessarily. The Welsh and English legislation does not do this, and in my view there was no need for our legislation to raise the evidential bar in this way. At some future date, if this had not been changed at stage 2, I was concerned that if, even in one case, the nearest relative of the donor could not provide evidence that would convince and a nation went ahead against what the relatives believed were the wishes of the deceased, then we could see this legislation undermined. Now I am very pleased that Joe FitzPatrick, the Minister for Public Health, has taken on board the point that I have been raising and he brought forward Government amendments to alter the bill, which have the same effect as the amendments that I was there, and I was happy to withdraw my own at stage 2. So now in the bill, if a person provides evidence to a health worker that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the adult's most recent view was that he or she was unwilling for the donation to take place, that would be acted upon. I have only got 40 seconds. With this safeguard now in place, I am more than happy to support the bill at decision time and want to place on record my thanks to Joe FitzPatrick, who was willing to take my concerns on board and change the wording of the bill. With only my vote against at stage 1, he wasn't under any real pressure to change the bill, but he took the time and he made the effort to get this right. I wanted to put my thanks to Joe FitzPatrick on the record and I also want to thank you for providing me with the opportunity to do so in this debate. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I say to the member that I abstained at stage 1. I support organ donation and carry a donor card and would encourage others to go on the register, and much in the bill is commendable. However, three words do not appear on the bill—donation and presumed consent. These have been displaced by transplantation and deemed authorisation, respectively, and I ask myself why. I suggest that those are used to swage any concerns that members may have because the nation requires the owner of something to voluntarily transfer it to someone else—a gift. You cannot gift if you are dead and have not registered as a donor. Presumed consent is a prime example of oxymoron because consent cannot be presumed. It has to be indicated in some form, or other, no matter how minute. The blink of an eye in response to one blink for yes, two for no—that will do. In my view, that is why organ donation and presumed consent have been rebadged as transplantation and deemed authorisation. The greater deceit is to try and say that deemed authorisation is different somehow from presumed consent, although Emma Harper transposed the two and she is quite right. If I consent you hitting me with a brick, the same will result from authorising you to do it. I will still have been hit by a brick. Consent, authorisation, one and the same. Neither authorisation nor consent can be presumed or deemed in the vital absence of any indication either way. In my view, it is wrong for the state to do so on behalf of a silent deceased. So, while I fully support the intent of the bill, I will regret that I cannot support the legislation as it is worded, just because it is well intended. I understand that and I want people to have access to organs, but this bill, as it stands, I cannot support and, accordingly, I will not support it at decision time. We now move to the closing speeches and I call David Stewart, four minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This has been an excellent debate with well informed and thoughtful contributions from across the chamber. I believe that the key point, echoed by several members, was that this is crucial legislation. How do we raise the level of organ donation in Scotland to match the needs of those desperately awaiting transplantation? Miles Briggs, who is absent from his place as I speak, made a tribute to those on the organisation register and, of course, their families. I think that he is right to say that we need to start a national conversation. I think that he is also right to thank all those who give evidence to the health and sport committee. I also believe that it is important that we do analyse the experience in Wales, albeit that it is still relatively new. To summarise that, Miles Briggs said, where Wales walks, we follow. I also believe that he is correct to say that we should also be looking at the provision of intensive care beds. Alison Johnstone made the important point that organ transplantation is a vital development of scientific healthcare and that there is a will to donate in Scotland as clearly evidenced in polling and, of course, family consents will rise. However, having the wider strategy of analysing on an annual basis, opt-in and opt-out are clearly important. Alec Cole-Hamilton conceded that before he was elected. His wish for his member's bill would have been organ donation, so I think that that was a very genuine point. He also made the very vital point that the gift of giving is something that has always been there. We always should remember that. I agree with him that praising the organ donation nurses that we in the health and sport committee met was very important. I think that telling the life story of donors is something that we should never forget. Emma Harper is an ex-nurse. Obviously, there is a tremendous experience here. She did talk about the safeguards in the bill for pre-death procedures, the need to raise awareness, and I accept that the minister has taken on board an amendment in this front. I would congratulate the Government for the work that they have done on We Need Everybody campaign. Lewis MacDonald talked about the fresh opportunity to relaunch organ donation, and we should never compromise family rights. We need to widen the pool of organ donation and that awareness-raising needs to be highlighted as it has been in the amendments and reviewed in the amended legislation. I believe that the stakes are very high for the success of the legislation. More than one in 10 people on the waiting list will die before they get the transplant that they need. As BMA Scotland has said, the bill will change the culture and philosophy within society so that donation becomes the norm. We need to aim for societal change where organ donation becomes an accepted fabric of our national life. The greatest gift that you can ever give is the gift of life itself. I am delighted to be closing this stage 3 debate on behalf of the Conservative Party. I imagine that it has been a very consensual debate given the topic. As has been said before, a very swift passage is testament to the work that was done previously by Anne McTarget and Mark Griffin, who is in the chamber today. During the health and support committee investigation, as many members have highlighted and the minister himself highlighted, I quite rightly saw the incredible work that the specialist nurses do in dealing with the bereaved family in their time of grief. I know that all my fellow committee members were moved by the demonstration of the conversation between the nurses and the next of kin. The number of questions is certainly a lot to be tackled at a time of grief. The delicate and empathetic way in which they deal with the subject of organ donation with the bereaved is a testament to their skill and dedication and we would all want to give them our thanks. It is fair to say that there was much discussion and debate in the health and support committee during the passage of the bill. I do not speak against the bill rather than the nuances around the bill and its potential implications. Far be it from me to, in any way, praise Keith Brown, but I thought that I might do to see if I could ruin his reputation here. I was always exorcised by the way that he consistently pressed for the rights of the donor and that their wishes should be paramount. However, the need for the next of kin to answer that complex set of questions on the deceased prior to any donation will always have that final veto to the family. I know that Mike Rumbles was speaking about that in his closing. I am not sure that there is any way around that but I think that Keith Brown certainly got us to think quite in depth about that. As any healthcare professional will not go against the wishes of the family irrespective of the donor's wishes expressed or presumed. As has been said, out of the 10 top countries in terms of transplant data, use a form of opt-in. However, the implementation of an opt-out system in of itself will not necessarily increase the number of donors. Spain has an example that has been raised by David Stewart, among others. In what he was suggesting was that in every hospital in Spain, they have a capacity and an expertise in organ transplant. I would ask what the plans the Scottish Government has to ensure that any increase in organ donation is matched by that increase in capacity. In those days, there are multiple shortages in staff across many disciplines in the NHS. I want to ask the Scottish Government, if it is confident, that it can recruit the prerequisite number of specialist nurses in our hospitals and make sure that they are equipped with the acute specialist facilities that are necessary. I would join David Stewart in asking the minister if he would perhaps address that in his closing remarks. I have also spoken about my reservations in the bill that having both presumed and expressed consent could lead to confusion. I think that Scotland has the highest level of card carrying donors in the UK but also the highest level of family overall. Alison Johnstone, Dave Stewart and Miles Biggs have highlighted that there are 40 per cent of the population who would donate but have not yet expressed that consent. I was one of them until recently, and it was only in changing my address and my driving licence that I was prompted online to express that consent. It took a little more than a minute to complete. I would advocate more opportunities to express consent, because, in my mind, that is a much more powerful declaration than any presumption. However, the bill does offer the opportunity to bring the topic to the nation's attention. I did catch part of BBC Scotland's radio discussion today this morning, and that is exactly what they were talking about. It does work, and that must be a good thing in itself. I think that instigation of conversation in families where their thoughts and wishes can be expressed has to be positive, as Kenny Gibson said. When supporting the bill with Scottish Conservatives, we would ask the Scottish Government to run a consistent marketing campaign alongside implementation of the bill to ensure maximum understanding of expressed consent. We would also ask that an order of the current number of intensive care beds and special staff be undertaken with a plan put in place for that potential increase in donors as a result of the bill. Denating organs is an incredible legacy to leave, and the passing of the organ donation bill sees the accumulation of many years by campaigners, and we would hopefully have the impact that we all think it can. I thank members for what has been a very good debate on a very complex and sensitive subject. I particularly thank members from across the chamber for reading out some of those names and some of those statements from people who have benefited from organ transplant, because it is really important that we hear those two stories, and I will hopefully have time to talk about some of the stories that I have heard and some of the people that I have met today. Donation, of course, can be a very personal issue, although there are, I think, some differences of view on moving to an opt-out system. I am sure that we all agree that it is important that we do all that we can to support initiatives that aim to increase donation. Moving to an opt-out system, as the bill provides for, will add to the initiatives that have been driving improvements over the last decade and have been leading to the progress that I spoke of earlier. It is hoped that that change will contribute further to those on-going positive developments. Those developments are supported by commitment on the Scottish Government to support and promote donation, but I have been driven forward by those who work in the system, and I want to put on record my thanks and admiration for their dedication. Over seeing the process, the Scottish donation and transplantation group has played a key role in ensuring that opportunities to improve donation and transplantation are maximised. The group has also provided valuable insight on the bill to ensure that it provides for a system that will work in practice. I am grateful for that input and know that the group will continue to play an important role as the new system is implemented and monitored. Miles Briggs, David Stewart and, at the end of Brian Whittle, asked about infrastructure and capacity. The Scottish Government has an on-going commitment to ensuring that the infrastructure supports donation. Performances that are continuously monitored and potential improvements are considered by the Scottish donation and transplantation group, which, as I said, oversees the delivery of the current plan for donation and transplantation for Scotland from 2013 to 2020. As part of the plan for increasing organ and tissue donation, the transplantation in Scotland from 2020 onwards will discuss with stakeholders whether there are further initiatives that should be progressed to improve the infrastructure for organ and tissue donation going forward. That is very important. Miles Briggs raised the issue of human rights legislation. I assure members that we have worked with those who work in donation and transplantation to ensure that we have a system that will work in practice, which clearly takes account of a person's rights, particularly under the European Convention of Human Rights. Mr Stewart mentioned briefly the Montgomery case, and the legislation is in line with its decision, but that was more about the concern to medical treatment, whereas the bill is about the authorisation of donation. I think that I want to finish. If it is okay, I have a few points, and there is another point that the member raised. The member went on to specifically ask about the Latvian case in the outcome of the Albert case, which Mr Stewart has raised, before turning on its own particular facts and circumstances. The issue was the quality of the Latvian organ donation legislation, which gave family members a right to object to donation but provided no mechanism for that right to be given effect in practice. The judgment does not suggest that a right to be consulted is a necessary feature of an opt-out system. It simply illustrates that, if there is a right that it is provided for, it must be capable of being exercised. That was where the Latvian law fell short. I am very grateful. The point that I raised was that the case was proved as a breach of article A of the European Convention of Human Rights. My point is that, if we are having a five-year review, it will be the courts that decide whether there is a breach. Does the minister agree that, in the long term, that is the best way to prove the legislation? Excuse me, minister. Could we quieten down the chamber, please? I think that Mr Stewart is absolutely right. We are absolutely comfortable that, looking at the case law in Albert in particular, we are content that the bill is absolutely solid in this area, but he is absolutely right that the five-year review allows that further examination. Alison Johnstone asked about staff training in education and awareness. It is a very important point training for those involved in the donation and transplant process. It will be a crucial part of the successful implementation of the new system. Alex Cole-Hamilton asked about psychological support for patients and donor families. I will point out that he has raised that before. The National Services Division is responsible for commissioning all the psychological support in the pre- and immediate post-transplant phase. It is currently reviewing the provision of psychological support across all national commission specialist services, including organ transplantation, to ensure that appropriate provision is in place. We understand that the review will be completed later this year. That is an important point. Mr Cole-Hamilton also mentioned support for families. We recognise the selfless decision that donor families have made, and specialist nurses do direct families to bereavement services where appropriate. It is important to know that, for many donor families, donation is seen as a positive outcome out of a tragic situation. It is a legacy for their loved ones, which can be a valuable part of their bereavement journey. Kenneth Gibson mentioned a range of other work that is improving donation, and he is absolutely right. I have been clear that opt-out will only deliver the increases in donation that we all want to see as part of a package of measures. Kenneth Gibson also talked about the frank conversations that people should have with their loved ones. Having those discussions about donation with loved ones will make it so much easier for families to make that decision comfortably and to have those conversations with specialist nurses should they die in tragic circumstances so that their organs can save their lives. It is really important. There is one message from today's debate. I encourage everyone to have those conversations and to speak to their family about what their wishes would be very quickly. Christine Grahame mentioned and talked about consent versus authorisation. Lewis MacDonald answered that point in his contribution that the wording relates back to 2006. I want to go back to why we are doing this. This morning, I was at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh and I saw first-hand the difference that donation can make when I met two organ recipients, Jamie and Clare. They spoke of the life-changing gift that they had received and the difference that it had made to their lives. Of her transplant, Clare said, I was like a different person. It is impossible to explain. Even though there have been some ups and downs with my recovery, my life is better than I could have expected. Jamie was equally grateful and said, it is an amazing gift. It is the gift of life. I will never be able to meet the person who did this for me and I am not sure I would know what to say to them if I did. It has so completely changed my life. We need to remember that that is why we are doing this. I am so proud to commend the bill to the chamber today. Like the 2006 act before it, it will provide the basis for further progress. I move that the Human Tissue Authorisation Scotland Bill be passed. That concludes our debate on the human tissue bill. Before we come to decision time, the next item of business is a standard procedures on public appointments committee debate on motion 17529, in the name of Bill Kidd, on standing order rule changes. I call on Bill Kidd to speak to and move the motion. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. The commission on parliamentary reform was established to look at how the Scottish Parliament can engage better with the people of Scotland and how our work here can be improved to deliver better scrutiny. The SPPA committee and the parliamentary bureau have both been responsible for implementing some of the commission's recommendations. The committee has now identified some changes to standing orders that are required. Those are set out in our committee report, but I will give a quick outline of them at the moment. First, we propose that the concept of urgent questions should be formalised in standing orders by replacing the word emergency questions with urgent questions throughout the rules. We are also proposing to permanently remove the requirement for party leaders to ask diary questions at First Minister's question time. That is already happening on a temporary basis. Second, we recommend that the current procedures for committee announcements, which appear to have worked well, should be formalised in standing orders. Third, we are proposing some improvements to the rules on members' bills. In particular, we propose to reduce the timescale within which the Scottish Government must legislate should it decide to block a final proposal for a member's bill. Another proposed change is that standing orders should allow any member to speak on the business programme on Wednesday at the discretion of the Presiding Officer. That will provide a mechanism for non-bureau members to make comments or raise points on the business programme. As well as the rule changes relating to parliamentary form, we are proposing some adjustments to the rules about the membership of the SPPA committee. We propose that if a member of the SPPA committee has made a complaint against another member or is the subject of a complaint, they should not be allowed to participate in the consideration of that complaint. Finally, we are taking the opportunity to propose some other minor changes to standing orders to bring parliamentary rules in line with current practices in areas such as the deadlines for lodging questions. Taken as a whole, the package of rule changes implements a number of the recommendations of the commission on parliamentary reform, as well as making several other improvements to the Parliament's standing orders. I am pleased to move the motion in my name. We are going to turn to the next item, which is decision time, and the first question is that motion 17566, in the name of Kevin Stewart, on the fuel poverty targets definition and strategy Scotland bill, be agreed. Because this is a bill, we are all to press our buttons. Members should vote now. The result of the vote on motion 17566, in the name of Kevin Stewart, is yes, 121. There were no votes against, there were no abstentions, the motion is agreed, and the fuel poverty targets definition and strategy Scotland bill is passed. The next question is that motion 17615, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on the human tissue authorisation Scotland bill, be agreed. Again, members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 17615, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, is yes, 116. No, 3. There were two abstentions, the motion is agreed, and the human tissue authorisation Scotland bill is passed. The final question is that motion 17529, in the name of Bill Kidd, on standing order rule changes be agreed, are well agreed. We are agreed, and that concludes decision time. We are going to move to members business now in the name of Murdo Fraser, on the way of St Andrews, but we will just take a few moments for members and the minister to change seats.